Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jeff – I do understand and appreciate the pressure here but it is vital 
that we don't sacrifice any of the due process and transparency because of this 
pressure. the community needs to get involved and this community goes beyond 
constituencies and stakeholder groups within ICANN. So a public period is 
necessary even if it is stretched and within a very tight timeframe. I am sure 
the GAC would appreciate the need for transparency in this process and the fact 
that the DT has worked very hard on this exceptional case.
I would also like to reiterate that it will be vital for the official report we 
submit to the Council that it incorporates all views expressed and not just the 
one that we have been working on lately.

Konstantinos

From: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:58:16 +0000
To: Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>, Chuck 
Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status 
Report

Stephane is correct that the status document is not one that needs to be put 
out for public comment as it is an informal document.

That said, the recommendations 1-3 in the report are recommendations from the 
Drafting Team that we do want feedback on for the Costa Rica meeting and it is 
those recommendations that in theory would be put before the Council at that 
time (not the report).

I would strongly encourage everyone to get feedback on those recommendations 
ASAP from your constituencies, stakeholder groups, ACs, etc.  This is not a new 
request as Drafting Team members have been doing this all along.  Circumstances 
here are not perfect.  No one is going to argue with that.  We all wish we have 
more time, but we do not.  The GAC has asked us to comment on their proposal to 
us in September with the intention of it being implemented at the top-level in 
this round and we should all strive to do that.

It would be disappointing to the Drafting Team if we could not get past the 
procedural issues at the council level when the Drafting Team has worked so 
hard to come with a solution that actually works for the parties involved.  So 
we all know what the procedural issues are.  The Drafting Team would really 
appreciate any comments on the substance.

I want to personally thank the Drafting Team for their work so far and we will 
continue to work through this issues irrespective of what happens at the 
Council level.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:42 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status 
Report

Agree on both counts Chuck. My point here is that this is not something that 
has come out of the DT. This is a document that Jeff drafted in his own time, 
following a request from the GAC to have some supporting documentation.

To me, putting such a document out for public comment would be a step too far 
from standard procedure.

Stéphane



Le 29 févr. 2012 à 22:34, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :


Moreover, it is not without precedent for WG’s to request comments on their 
work before they are finished.
Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:29 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO
Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status 
Report

Thanks for the clarification, Stephane - I'd asked precisely because it 
occurred to me that having a formal public comment period for this report would 
not be possible for a number of reasons. That said, and assuming the Council 
will be asked to vote on one/some/all recommendation(s) in Costa Rica, I can 
foresee problems ahead if, for instance, the Council votes then to approve 
certain permanent protections for this and future gTLD rounds based on 
recommendations made by other than a formal GNSO Working Group.

I would think that a few of my Council colleagues would either share my 
concerns or have some of their own. If so, and assuming we agree that should 
this topic come up for a vote in Costa Rica our normal deferral process would 
be the worst thing we could do in terms of responsiveness to the GAC, then we 
need to find ways to get feedback on the actual recommendation(s) from all the 
community, in addition to input on the various options/issues they may have 
already given to the DT during the discussion process.

Cheers
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone>: 
1-603-513-5143Webpage:http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected 
writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the 
University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire 
School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow 
the convention: 
firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx>. For more 
information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit 
law.unh.edu<http://law.unh.edu>


>>>
From:

Stéphane Van 
Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>

To:

"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

CC:

<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>

Date:

2/29/2012 4:18 PM

Subject:

Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

There is no official comment period planned for this. This is an unofficial 
report drafted by Jeff to help with an upcoming call, and not a document of the 
DT.

It should therefore not be put out for public comment.

Stéphane



Le 29 févr. 2012 à 21:34, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

Thanks Mary.  The document is “out for public comment” now.  I would love for 
it to be formally out, but some may argue that takes an act of Council.  We 
have a very limited time frame here and have had valuable input from each 
constituency and stakeholder group already and continue to get more.

Can ICANN staff put this on their page?  Any help would be appreciated.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:25 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

Thanks, Jeff and everyone on the DT, for some marvelously quick and detailed 
work, and for a very clear and concise report.

Question - will this be put out for "official" public comment? I ask partly 
because of the possibility that the Council will be asked to vote on at least 
some part of the report in Costa Rica, and also because the recommendations 
pertain to protections that will also apply to future new gTLD rounds.

As many of you know, I definitely support a closer, better and more responsive 
working relationship with the GAC; however, even leaving aside issues with the 
process by which this particular issue came to the table and has now to be 
resolved, I remain concerned about ad-hoc work under the heading of 
"implementation" that isn't so much a natural follow-up to the GNSO's own 
policy recommendations (i.e. in this case the 2007 report on new gTLDs) but 
which could change or conflict with them. I know this issue was raised during 
this particular DT's discussions, as was the issue of precedent-setting, so I'm 
glad we're watchful for these risks. This might, however, buttress the argument 
that at the very least, a public comment be instituted prior to any vote/action.

Cheers
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone>: 
1-603-513-5143Webpage:http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected 
writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the 
University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire 
School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow 
the 
convention:firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx>.
 For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please 
visit law.unh.edu<http://law.unh.edu>


>>>
From:

"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>

To:

"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx%20> 
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx%20> " 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

CC:

"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>

Date:

2/28/2012 11:43 PM

Subject:

[council] FW: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

FYI.   Please circulate amongst your constituencies, stakeholder groups and 
Advisory Committees.

From: Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:38 PM
To: Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx>; 
mark.carvell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mark.carvell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
SRadell@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:SRadell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
Neuman, Jeff
Subject: IOC/RC Drafting Team Status Report

Heather, Mark and Suzanne,

As promised, please find enclosed a status report from the Chair of the IOC/RC 
Drafting Team of the GNSO Council that has been tasked with advising the GNSO 
Council with respect to the September 2011 GAC proposal on permanently 
protecting the Olympic and Red Cross names at the top and second levels for new 
gTLDs.  Although this report was shared with the members of the Drafting Team, 
it was drafted by me as the Chair, and as such is not an official report from 
the Drafting Team.  It represents the Chair’s current understanding of the 
discussions of the Drafting Team.  Each of the recommendations addressed in 
this report are still under review by the GNSO Community.  We are providing 
this report to assist in the discussions between the Drafting Team, interested 
GNSO Councilors and GAC members on March 2, 2012.

Please feel free to forward this report to the other members of the GAC as I 
will be sending this to the GNSO Council as well.  We look forward to a 
productive call this Friday as well as in Costa Rica at the ICANN meeting.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.